| · Research
· Wholesalers
· Original pack dispensing
· Controlled drugs
· Prescribing
· NICE
· Reciprocity
· Dermatology
· Birdsgrove House
· Registration examination (2)
· New pharmacy contract
Letters to the Editor
|
New pharmacy contract
Two thirds of independents against it?
From Mr N. Baumber, FRPharmS
Over the past nine months since the ballot on the new pharmacy contract,
I find that the level of support in community pharmacy is freely being
misrepresented as “92.3 per cent of all pharmacy contractors”.
Even John Reid, Secretary of State for Health at the time, mentioned “92.3
per cent of pharmacists”. I can forgive him for being misinformed
but I would not like this figure, equivalent to 8,999 pharmacies, to pass
unchallenged into folklore as the massive endorsement that it appears to
be (the total number of pharmacy contracts in England at 31 March 2004
was 9,750).
The Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee (PSNC) website reporting
the ballot states: “In England, 73.8 per cent of pharmacies took
part in the ballot, of which 92.3 per cent voted in favour.” No breakdown
of the result into independent and multiple pharmacies, or by size of pharmacy,
is available since the database used for the ballot did not distinguish
between contractors in this way.
Should we blame “the database” for this attempt at obfuscation?
As the ballot papers were sent to PSNC head office there was surely an
opportunity to distinguish the finer detail of where support and opposition
lay?
Nevertheless, a little arithmetic helps to throw some light on the ballot.
Only 7,195 pharmacies (73.8 per cent of 9,750) could have responded to
the ballot of which 6,641 (92.3 per cent of 7,195) will have been in support
of the proposals. Note that the PSNC statement accounts for “pharmacies” and
not “contractors” or even “pharmacists”. There
is a difference.
The Department of Health’s statistics show the current ownership
split of these 9,750 community pharmacies. 5,070 (52 per cent) are owned
by multiples and 4,680 (48 per cent) are owned by independents.
Since 5,070 pharmacies are controlled by the boards of the multiples (probably
fewer than 100 corporate owners who campaigned hard for the new contract
to be adopted), then presumably their bloc votes and 1,571 independent
votes will have been cast in support of the proposed contract.
As one third of independent contractors (representing 16.1 per cent of
all pharmacies) supported the contract, then two thirds of independent
contractors (3,057) must have withheld their support for the contract either
by abstention, or by voting against the proposals (554).
In summary, around 1,671 voting entities supported the contract, representing
68.1 per cent of pharmacies. Only 35 per cent of contract owners essentially
decided the outcome of the ballot. More than 20,000 managers and pharmacists
working in community pharmacy could not express an opinion on their own
futures by way of voting because it was a contractor ballot. All of these
figures fall a long way short of that enthusiastic 92.3 per cent.
I cannot defend apathy, but I can understand why so many independents abstained
(2,503) given the lack of financial analysis before the ballot and acute
pressure from the PSNC to accept the deal. With no alternative schemes
of distributing funds on offer, their scepticism could find no outlet other
than acquiescence. The financial effects on cash flow of the new distribution
of funds and the decrease in reimbursement that they feared will begin
to bite over the next few months. Shall we see the PSNC monitoring the
detriment, and responding vigorously, to the plight of the 40 per cent
or so of lower volume contractors, or defending instead the consequences
of the political agenda to which they have agreed with a substantial input
from Company Chemists’ Association?
Noel Baumber
Grantham,
Lincolnshire |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal